2023 (11) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2004. In the financial year 2011-12, the appellant reversed the cenvat credit on monthly basis proportionately under Rule 6(3A) at the end of the financial year 2011-12. This proportionate reversal worked out to Rs. 1, 93, 98,476/- on provisional basis. However , on determination of final amount of reversal of cenvat credit, the appellant found that actual amount that was reversible was only Rs. 91,41,144/- and thus the appellant were eligible to claim re-credit of Rs. 1, 02, 57,602/-, since the provisional reversal during the financial year 2011-12 was in excess by that amount. 1.2 Pursuant to the audit of the records, a show cause notice came to be issued alleging that the appellant had failed to follow the prescribed condition of Rule ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not included by the Appellant at the time of quantification of the amount to be reversed as per Rule 6(3A). Further, the learned Commissioner also confirmed levy of interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 13, 00,000/- under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Shri Hardik Modh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that all the services specified in Rule 6 (5) for which cenvat credit of Rs. 1,58,66,384/- was availed in the year 2011-12 were received prior to the omission of Rule 6 (5) i.e. prior to 01.04.2011. He submits that it is evident from the excel sheet placed in the appeal papers from page 71 to 349 that all the services received prior to 01.04.2011 and....